Lord Warner: My Lords, in their 2003 genetics White Paper, the Government wholeheartedly endorsed the Human Genetics Commission's view that no one should be unfairly discriminated against on the basis of their genetic characteristics. The Government are currently undertaking a discrimination law review to develop a clearer and more streamlined framework of equality law. It will consider calls to extend discrimination law into new areas, including the case for introducing protection in relation to genetic discrimination. I cannot predict or pre-empt the review's findings.

Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that extremely promising reply—it sounds as if the Government are really moving on this. However, is he aware that some human rights lawyers, academics, trades unions and GeneWatch UK have expressed deep concern that we now have no legal barriers against the unfettered use of the tests to discriminate against people and that those with genetic disorders in the United States and Australia are being discriminated against by employers and insurance companies? If we do not act shortly, the same kind of thing will happen here. Although we have a moratorium on insurance companies using genetics, it is a temporary measure; there is no permanent solution. We really need some legislation to prevent abuses happening before they have begun. So will the Government move as soon as possible, please?

Lord Bach: My Lords, we aim to publish our revised climate change programme shortly, which will set out our future plans to engage consumers in energy saving. At present, the Government support activity to persuade householders of the benefits of saving energy for our climate change and fuel poverty goals through the work of the Energy Saving Trust, the Warm Front programme and the energy efficiency commitment.

Lord Bach: My Lords, I can answer the noble Lord with a "yes", as the Government have done the things that he asks. The issue of climate change, in which I know that the noble Lord is passionately interested, has meant that there is a requirement to raise public understanding way beyond its present level. As the noble Lord knows, we have launched the Climate Change Challenge Fund, which has available to it £12 million up until 2007–08. The intention is to try to persuade people and inform them of the dangers of climate change from the bottom up; it seems to work better that way than from the top down. That is an absolutely essential part of what the Government must do to make more people aware of this real danger.

Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. We share the hurt and pain that must have been caused to the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General. Does the Minister accept that we have the most disaster-prone Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police? He assumed a political role in relation to ID cards; he prevented the IPCC conducting a legal investigation; he made insensitive remarks about the Soham murders; and now he seems to have been found recording private telephone conversations. Will the Minister, first, ask the HMIC to discover how many such conversations have been recorded and, secondly, ask the police committee of the Greater London Authority whether Sir Ian is a fit and proper person to run the Met?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, first, my noble and learned friend the Attorney-General believes that the matter is closed and has been absolutely properly dealt with. Secondly, I absolutely fundamentally disagree with the noble Lord that Sir Ian Blair is a disaster or an accident-prone commissioner. If one looks at the safety of London since he became commissioner, one sees that he has discharged his duty with honour. The numbers of violent and other offences have been dealt with, and we know that Her Majesty's Inspectorate will continue properly to discharge its duty.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on its Amendments Nos. 16 and 22, in respect of which the Commons have insisted on their disagreement; and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 22C in lieu.
	Amendment No. 22C was agreed by the other place on Monday 13 March by a majority of 33 votes. At the same time, I will seek to persuade your Lordships not to accept Motion A1 of the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, amending Motion A. That would have the effect of reinstating Amendments Nos. 16 and 22, which would unpick the linkage between designated documents and identity cards.
	Amendment No. 22C is largely technical. It clarifies Clause 5 by adding, where it says that an application for a designated document,
	"must include an application to be entered on the Register",
	the words "or be accompanied by" after "include". We have already enjoyed the delightful opportunity on two separate occasions to discuss Amendments Nos. 16 and 22 at length. The first was on Report on 23 January and the second was on consideration of Commons amendments on 6 March. On the latter occasion we had an extensive argument about the manifesto and the commitments that were made thereby, and for the purpose of today's debate I do not intend to refer to those issues again. I do not intend to spend very long now repeating the arguments we have had on previous occasions as to why the Government believe the Bill should not be amended in the way proposed in Amendments Nos. 16 and 22.
	We believe there is a persuasive reason for the linkage that exists in the Bill as it now returns to your Lordships' House. Last week, we started to phase in the issue of "e-passports", incorporating a facial image biometric. Once we have moved on to the next phase of biometric passports, including facial image and fingerprint biometrics, anyone applying for a passport will have to go through the same sort of application process as for an identity card and will have their personal details and biometrics recorded on a central passport database. Without the linkage with identity cards, this would be without the safeguards that we have introduced into this procedure by virtue of this Bill.
	Our plans to link passports and identity cards have a long history. This should, therefore, not come as a surprise to anyone. I wish simply to summarise the chronology. In July 2002, the Government issued their first consultation document about a card scheme and one of the options canvassed was for a universal scheme linked to passports. In November 2003, we announced the decision in principle to introduce identity cards. It was then made clear that there would be a two-stage scheme. In the initial stage, as well as introducing a voluntary plain identity card for those who do not have a passport, we would link identity cards to more secure passports. In Identity Cards— The Next Steps, the policy document published in November 2003 (Cm 6020), we stated at paragraph 16(ii):
	"linking more secure passports and perhaps eventually driving licences to the scheme on a compulsory basis so that they will be acceptable forms of identity card. By linking the card scheme to widely held identity documents most people will get a card conveniently and automatically as they renew an existing document".
	In April 2004, we published the draft Identity Cards Bill, and the same word, "must", was included in Clause 5(2) as we are now debating. We were again very clear that in the first, initial stage of the identity cards scheme, there should be no possibility of obtaining a designated document, such as a passport, without an identity card. Paragraph 2.17 of the consultation paper on the draft Identity Cards Bill, published in April 2004, (Cm 6178) said:
	"Once a document such as a passport has been designated as an ID card, this will be the only form in which it will be available—i.e. there will be no 'non-ID card' variants. It would undermine confidence in the system if there were to be identity documents available, on demand, at different levels of security".
	In November 2004, we introduced the first Identity Cards Bill, which was agreed by the other place and passed at Second Reading by this House in March 2005. The same provision requiring applicants for passports or other designated documents to obtain an identity card was included in that Bill.
	In May 2005, this Bill was reintroduced. Yet again, we made it absolutely clear that, once designated, obtaining a passport would also mean being issued with an identity card. That is the background against which we now consider what happened in this Bill.
	I believe we have been clear and consistent on this point. The Government have listened and made concessions on a number of other points in the Bill, including: the requirement to publish the six-monthly estimates of cost; the removal of Clauses 6 and 7, to bring forward compulsion by secondary legislation; as well as a large number of other technical amendments, many originally proposed in this House by noble Lords opposite to clarify and to improve the Bill.
	That is the function of this House: to clarify, to improve, to amend, to ask the other place to think again and, if necessary, to think again. The simple fact is that this Bill, with the provisions in Clauses 5 and 8 linking designated documents and identity cards, was passed by the House of Commons on 18 October.
	The Lords Amendments Nos. 16 and 22 were rejected by the elected House by a majority of 31 on 13 February this year and again, by a majority of 33, on 13 March. If necessary, these amendments will continue to be resisted strongly by the Government, and the other place will continue to make its voice heard.
	We have the result of having asked the other place to think again. We have debated this issue and voted on it, and it has been rejected twice by the elected House. Therefore, we have to ask ourselves whether this is not the moment when this House should give way to the elected Chamber, because our role is to review and not to wreck.
	If that is so, there comes a moment when we have to bow to the other place. I would respectfully suggest that we would honour the function of this House better if we did that with a degree of grace.
	I simply ask, therefore, that your Lordships consider whether it would be proper and in the tradition of this House to go further. I remember with great clarity what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, when he was pressed on this matter on Radio 4. He responded:
	"At the end of the day the House of Commons will have its say".
	It has spoken. It has spoken loudly. Its voice is rising, and I do not think that we need a cacophony to tell us that the time has now arrived. Therefore, I move that your Lordships' House should not insist on Amendments Nos. 16 and 22 and that, having done a valiant job, we should now bow and accept in lieu Amendment No. 22C, proposed by the other place.
	Moved, That this House do not insist on its Amendments Nos. 16 and 22, in respect of which the Commons have insisted on their disagreement; and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 22C in lieu.—(Baroness Scotland of Asthal.)

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I was hoping to get into my amendment, but I will answer the noble Lord's point. There is a huge difference in terms of severity. The noble Lord shakes his head—I shall leave it at that and continue with my speech.
	By far the major part of the Home Secretary's opening and closing speeches were devoted to trying to re-interpret the Labour Party manifesto at the election last year. At col. 1249 he quoted from the manifesto—and these words have been repeated several times:
	"'We will introduce ID cards, including biometric data like fingerprints, backed up by a national register and rolling out initially on a voluntary basis as people renew their passports'".
	Having repeated that, Mr Clarke continued:
	"Passports are voluntary documents—[Laughter.]"—
	that was not me, but Hansard—
	"Well, of course they are.",
	said Mr Clarke.
	"No one is forced to renew a passport if they choose not to do so".—[Official Report, Commons, 13/3/06; col. 1249.]
	I am afraid that my primary school teacher, Miss Lovelace, would have give Mr Clarke 0 out of 10 for that. She would have pointed out in the sweetest way, because she was never nasty to a wayward child, that the word "voluntary" in that sentence related to ID cards, not passports. It plainly did not say or mean to say, "We will introduce ID cards initially on a compulsory basis as people renew their passports voluntarily". Indeed, more than 80 per cent of the population have passports. Yet that is the cock-eyed interpretation that is now pressed on the public by a government who seem to be losing their sense of shame.
	Only an administration that desperately needs to dis-impale itself from the hook of its own making would resort to such double-speak. If this was a City prospectus, the financial equivalent of an election manifesto, the FSA would be down on it like a ton of bricks. The Square Mile may not be a beacon of moral scrupulousness, but it would scoff at the verbal gymnastics being employed by the Government. Noble Lords should listen to the Home Secretary again. In the same speech, he stated:
	"That position is that the scheme will initially be based on a stand-alone identity card, issued on its own on a voluntary basis, or together with a document such as a passport, which is also issued on a voluntary basis. That seems to be clear and unequivocal".—[Official Report, Commons, 13/3/06; col. 1249.]
	Conceivably, Mr Clarke, that is so, but only so long as you do not link the two, as the designation process under Clauses 4 and 5 does, and only so long as the designation process does not, in making that link, force the citizen seeking or renewing a passport to take out an ID card as well. But that is precisely what it does. It staggers me that we are still discussing that point. Try that argument out on anyone in the high street or in a pub and you will get an "are you mad?" look.
	The inglorious reality is that the reason the Labour manifesto last year talked only of "voluntary" ID cards, was to disarm the opposition that was already apparent from civil liberties lobbies, among whom there are many Labour voters and for whom the issue of compulsion was important, if not vital.
	When Mr Clarke wound up on Monday, he stepped yet deeper into his own verbal bog, arguing that what really matters is not the manifesto at all, but what was said before the manifesto—namely what was in the Bill published in 2004. Indeed, the noble Baroness gave us a long peroration today of what happened before the manifesto. But that, too, is patently feeble. We all know full well that what matters for the purposes of the manifesto mandate—and the Salisbury convention—is what is in the manifesto. You cannot at one and the same time sanctify manifestos by claiming, as the Commons regularly does, the right to override this place on the basis of commitments in them—most recently on the Hunting Bill—and, at the same time, ignore a particular commitment on the grounds that you do not much like it and have had second thoughts. We know full well that manifestos sometimes very intentionally change old policies and priorities and adopt new ones to attract wider public support at elections. If, besides scanning the 111 pages of Labour's last manifesto, the public are also supposed to have reviewed what Labour Ministers said and what Bills were before this House and the other place in the previous year or two, the situation would be as daft as it would be unrealistic. What would the poor voter be supposed to make—

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I can deal with it very simply. I am the first and last to acknowledge the primacy of the other House. I would never challenge it for a second. But here we are dealing with an exceptional case in which this House is seeking to uphold the manifesto of the Government, and that is the truth of it. I shall continue if I may.
	What would the poor voter be supposed to do, confronted with a Bill, which, as we said, came before the other place and this place before the manifesto, which says one thing, and the later manifesto, which says another? It is perfectly clear that the manifesto is what counts when the electorate go to the polls. It will not do for the Government to argue otherwise, in particular, because the Home Secretary is, after all, the embodiment and guardian of law and order, and that in turn depends on the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. I sincerely say to the House that the example being set by the Government in this instance is self-damaging—indeed, it damages us all at a time when public trust in politics is already fraying. I say all this with genuine reluctance because I recognise what a hugely difficult job the Home Secretary does and what ability, energy and, in normal circumstances, decency the present incumbent brings to that onerous task.
	Before I sit down, I need to say a word about the effects of our amendments because they have still apparently not hit home. Mr Clarke's first argument on Monday, and we heard it again this afternoon, was that unless, as he put it, the processes of taking out a passport and taking out an ID card were merged—that was his word—citizens would be deprived of what he called,
	"the statutory safeguards provided by the Bill, such as the creation of a national identity scheme commissioner".
	The answer to that is simple. If you believe that there are extra safeguards by having an ID card, as the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, and the noble Baroness said last week, you will no doubt take out your voluntary ID card. That is fine. That is up to each of us to decide.
	It is also for us to decide whether or not we better protect our identity against fraud by having an ID card. Again, voluntarism is best: first, because there is considerable disagreement as to whether the ID card will do that—I refer to the honey-pot risk; and, secondly, because the overhanging and perhaps dominant issue in the general debate is whether we should be forced to hand over to the state the mass of Schedule 1 information that will create the database standing behind every card, as Tony McNulty, the Minister, put it on 13 February. Here, again, I am afraid that misleading statements have been made, most recently on Monday, when the Home Secretary said:
	"The same data will be held in both cases".—[Official Report, Commons, 13/3/06; col. 1250.]—
	referring, of course, to ID cards on the one hand and passports on the other. The noble Baroness gave a comparable impression to that in our debate on 6 March, although she has not done so today.
	For a passport, you need give only your present principal address, compared with the prospect for ID cards under Clause 1 of providing not only all your addresses in the UK and abroad, but the time you have spent at each of those addresses—back without limit. Your file at the ID registry will also contain 13 categories of personal reference numbers, compared with one or none for the passport, plus your record, registration and ID card history, validation information, security information, and, above all, your intimate audit trail information. None of that is needed for a passport.
	Why do the Government continue to pretend otherwise? Add to that the danger of future pressure to add to the list of required data and the managerial imperative—the economic rationalisation—favouring merger of all state information on to the ID register. The information commissioner was surely right to deliver his sombre warning last October.
	Like the noble Baroness, I do not propose to repeat the general arguments that I and many others of your Lordships deployed on 6 March, and earlier, in support of the Motion. Suffice it to say that this uniquely complex centralised scheme is ill-thought through, incompletely costed, hugely costly, technologically risky and corruptible both internally and externally. Furthermore, the ambitious claims made for it have steadily lost weight as they have been subjected to detailed scrutiny in this place and beyond it. A compulsory scheme will add to what has become, I am sad to say, a surveillance state of unparalleled reach among democracies. What is more, the majority of our EU partners either have no cards or voluntary ID cards.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, picked out Sweden, Finland and Denmark at the end of her speech last week to support her case, and said that they were "hardly totalitarian states". How true, but let us consider the facts. Sweden introduced a simple national ID card on 1 October last year, but it is voluntary. Finland has a simple and voluntary card. Denmark does not have an ID card at all.
	Our Motion would allow those who favour cards, for whatever reason, to have them voluntarily without the compulsion of the Government's proposals. Very many would have cards; very many would not. I received a message when I arrived this afternoon from a woman who said that she represented a large number of embattled and battered women. She said, "For goodness sake, don't let them have compulsory cards because the register will be fallible and we will be vulnerable".
	Over time, compulsion is likely to have a profoundly damaging impact on that trust and allegiance of the citizen towards the state and its organs without which our most cherished hopes and, indeed, the stated aims of the Government in this Bill, cannot be realised. We and the Conservatives have abandoned the other several votes that were taken and won in this House during the Bill's passage. This is not conceivably a wrecking amendment, but a saving one. I beg to move.
	Moved, as an amendment to Motion A, leave out from "House" to end and insert "do insist on its Amendments Nos. 16 and 22, and do disagree with the Commons Amendment No. 22C in lieu".—(Lord Phillips of Sudbury.)

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I support Motion A1 moved by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, and oppose government Motion A. The objective of the noble Lord's Motion is admirably simple. It would enact the Government's manifesto commitment. The Minister said that she does not want to return to that lengthy argument and instead gave us a history of other government documents—all of which I have read because that is my job. The public, who go to vote in a general election as their citizens' duty, rely on a manifesto. If we cannot rely on it, why bother with elections at all.
	The manifesto commitment said that the Government would introduce ID cards, including biometric data, such as fingerprints, backed up by a national register and rolling out, initially, on a voluntary basis as people renew their passports. This Bill and the Government's Motion would not do that. For all those who need a new passport, it would make the right to leave this country conditional, on us coming into compulsion, on being entered on the register and on buying an ID card. I could not put it better than the Minister's honourable friend, Mr Mark Fisher, did in another place on Monday evening this week. He said:
	"If we believe in a voluntary scheme, as the Home Secretary and the manifesto say that we do, there is no way that we can reject the Lords amendments . . . By rejecting the amendments, the Government will be opting for compulsion".—[Official Report, Commons, 13/3/06; col. 1260.]
	Mr Fisher is right.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I am always so pleased to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes. I sometimes think he is my greatest ally on the Benches opposite. When I consider the manifesto commitments on education reform and what is happening in another place today, on reforming the health service and on smoking issues, of course, the noble Lord is right to point out that this Government can be relied on to abandon their manifesto commitments. He asked whether I would allow interventions and explained how important they are. What a pity that the Home Secretary in another place refused to do so on Monday night.
	I return to my speech. The Government's technical amendment would simply mean that compulsory application to the register with a designated document could be made either on one form or two, so compulsion by stealth is still there. As the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, has said, we are then left with a huge audit trail of our lives. In the course of proceedings on the Bill we have heard many arguments. The Home Secretary has many admirers in this House and in another place. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, that for much of the time I am one of those admirers. But I believe that the argument put forward on Monday by the Home Secretary was surely one of the most extraordinary that we have yet heard and it should not be given house room by any Member of either House. He said that the manifesto commitment that a scheme would be voluntary would be true even in a regime where free British people would not be allowed a passport to travel unless they paid up and enrolled for an ID card because, and I quote him,
	"That is the free will that people may exercise in deciding whether or not they wish to have a passport . . . That is the free will over what they can do and how they can operate. That is what the wording means".—[Official Report, Commons, 13/3/06; col. 1261.]
	Oh, that George Orwell were alive today to hear those words. The Home Secretary says that it is all free will. I do not think that that is a definition of freedom that our parents and grandparents had in mind when they took up arms to defend it. On 6 March, the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, said (at col. 570 of the Official Report) that we should not exploit "infelicitous" drafting. I wonder whether the noble Baroness has had direct experience of drafting manifestos. Maybe she has. If she has, she will know that every word, in every sentence, in every manifesto is pored over, discussed, decided and cleared at the highest level. The pledge that ID cards would be rolled out voluntarily will have been agreed personally by the Prime Minister, as it would by every Prime Minister, and by the Home Secretary. So the Government must have decided deliberately on the wording in the manifesto. They had the chance to state openly in the manifesto that, if elected, they would force us all to be registered and to pay for an ID card, but they chose not to do so.
	Under the Motion tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, the individual would have a real choice and genuine free will and, if they wished, they could choose to go on the register and have an ID card. There is nothing to stop them. The individual could have exactly what the Home Secretary is trying to say that they have; they would have free will—free will to have a passport and, separately, the free will to have an ID card.
	The Home Secretary and the Minister have repeated their Second Reading arguments about the purposes of the scheme. The Home Secretary went into some detail on Monday night. I simply remind the Minister as gently as I can that we set out five clear tests on purposes in Committee. We took great care to go through them, but the Government have failed to come up to scratch on each one. We believe there are quite simply other and better ways of securing our safety, reducing the fraudulent use of services, and managing migration—ways that would not pose a risk to our freedom to the extent that this grandiose scheme will do, and that would be more financially prudent. Even government departments have recognised that. The Minister in charge of the Bill in the other place, Mr Burnham, confessed to the press that government departments have not exactly been rushing to him with cheques in their hands to sign up to the Home Office scheme.
	The Minister argued last week, as has the Home Secretary outside this House, that we should be bound by the advice of the Wakeham commission in recommendation 7 of its report—a report that the Government have not fallen over themselves to implement in other areas. The commission, chaired by my noble friend Lord Wakeham, recommended that the House should be cautious about challenging the clearly expressed views of another place on issues of policy. I entirely agree. We are always cautious, but every now and then come fundamental issues of freedom and ancient liberty. I believe this is one such issue.
	We agree with the view of the Select Committee on the Constitution, which said:
	"we continue to believe that the constitutional significance of the Bill is that it adjusts the fundamental relationship between the individual and the State".
	If we believe that a government have got the balance wrong on such a significant matter, and one that is not covered by the manifesto, surely, if we have any role in this Parliament, we should have the right to insist on our view. I therefore strongly urge this House to support the Motion tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, and to defend the right of the people of this country to exercise their free will.

Lord Gould of Brookwood: My Lords, the first way in which I know is because there was a general election—a party won and a party lost—and this measure was in the manifesto. The union opposite distorts what, to me, is a clear move towards a stage of compulsion. That is the first way.
	The second way—I know this is modern—is that we asked people.

Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, perhaps may I say in answer that if it is really the case that the people were mad enough to choose voluntarily to bring themselves under a system of compulsion which will expose the innermost secrets of their lives to identity theft—which is already growing—and which will make them extremely vulnerable, I am very disappointed in the public. I would be most interested to meet the kind of people the noble Lord meets because I can imagine no one saying, "Yes, I want a passport, but I also insist on having compulsorily an identity card which will put me at risk".
	Incidentally, the very creation of such an enormous national identity register will be a present to terrorists; it will be a splendid thing for them to disrupt and blow up. It will also provide valuable information to organised crime and to the intelligence services of unfriendly countries. It will be accessible to all of these. I find it extraordinarily difficult to believe why anyone would voluntarily and enthusiastically come forward and say, "Do let me join this dangerous club".

Lord Peston: My Lords, I intervene with reluctance. I say immediately that I have no intention of debating identity cards in what I have to say. Unlike Mozart's music, hearing the speeches on this subject once is enough. We do not need to hear them several times, as seems to be offered at the moment.
	This is not about identity cards. It is a serious constitutional question about the relationship between this House and the other place. I am just about to enter my 20th year here, and I know of no example of misbehaviour—I use that word advisedly—of this House corresponding to what is being proposed at present. We are a scrutiny House and any legitimacy that we have is based on our dispassionate scrutiny of legislation. Our role is to expose the nature of Bills and to ask the other place whether it would like to think again. I remind your Lordships that the Government do not have a majority in this House, nor do the Official Opposition. In my judgment, there will never, in our lifetimes or beyond, be a majority in this House for an elected government in this country. The House will always be as it is now, balanced broadly between the Government and the principal Opposition, with plenty of other Peers as well.
	Unless the Official Opposition have come to the conclusion that they will never form the government of this country again, they are behaving in the most foolhardy way imaginable in suggesting that we should send this back to the Commons yet again. The other House may be wrong—I do not want to argue about that; they often are wrong—but it is the elected Chamber. I thought that we had for some time accepted that it was the primary Chamber, and whether it was right or wrong, it must get its own way. I have not the slightest doubt about that. Noble Lords who are in favour of the amendment may well be right—I do not know as I do not have the expertise. But whether we are right or wrong is now completely irrelevant to what is confronting us. What is confronting us is a very deep constitutional matter. We have asked the other place to think about this twice, and twice is sufficient. Not only would it be unconstitutional, but I advise noble Lords opposite that if they are ever in government again, they will be deeply sorry if they create a precedent on this matter today.

Lord McNally: My Lords, I understand now and I can follow the noble Lord's argument even better.
	It was very interesting to hear the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Gould. It was nice to see the sorcerer's apprentice in the flesh, telling us how these things are done. On the substance of the argument, voluntary means voluntary and compulsory means compulsory. I invite the noble Lord, Lord Gould, to tell us whether one of his focus groups tested those two words before the general election. I suspect it did. The reason that "voluntary" went in the Bill, as the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, pointed out, is that it is a softer and more acceptable word.
	I took part in writing four manifestos and fought on two, so I know a little about them. Some are kept, some are changed and some are quietly forgotten. The issue here, as the noble Lord, Lord Peston, has rightly said, is to do with the relative responsibilities of our two Houses. I do not accept that the Salisbury convention stands any more. It is absurd that a convention set up 60 years ago between a Labour government with 48 per cent of the electorate behind them and a wholly hereditary, Conservative-dominated House of Lords should still apply, with a Labour Government elected by 34 per cent of the vote and Labour now the largest party in the House.

Lord McNally: My Lords, I am not saying that at all. I am saying that legislation is either well written or badly written. To start relying on a 60-year-old doctrine rather than the argument to get your legislation through—particularly when you have changed the wording to which you committed in the manifesto—is the last refuge of legislative scoundrels. What we are really debating today is what this House should do at this point.
	I know that the Minister has two means of addressing this House: sometimes she is charming, and sometimes she is scary. I suspect that this afternoon we are going to get "scary". We will be told what this House should not do, what it must not do and what it dare not do. But I suggest that the powers of this House were not given to it by James I or Charles II. They were given less than eight years ago by the democratic House of Commons. Included in those powers was the power to reject part or all of legislation. If we do not retain that sanction, then ping-pong becomes mere shadow boxing. All Ministers have to do is to sit pat, knowing that they will ultimately have their way. I therefore think it is very important in the relationship between the two Houses that this House retains the right to say no.
	The noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, has intervened about 12 times today. He makes me think of an American footballer from Chicago a few years ago called the Refrigerator. He was not very good at American football but he used to fall on opponents from a great height. I always think of the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, as the Refrigerator of the government Benches. The fact, however, is that we have the Parliament Act. That ensures the right of the elected House to have its way. But this House must retain the right to say, "Not in our name". That is the process, and that is the process we are going through today.

Lord McNally: No, my Lords. The Minister will see that the machinery was in the 1998 Act. If this House says no, as it did over fox hunting, the other place—the democratically elected House—can and should prevail. But it has to take the consequences of that. When it comes to legislation as important as this—one of those rare occasions to which Wakeham referred—we have the right to say no. It is not a veto; it is this House using the powers that it was given by the democratically elected House. If you take that power away, you are left with an emasculated House of Lords and a House of Commons that is dominated by an over-powerful executive which was elected on a very small majority of votes. That is a very dangerous way to run a democracy. Lord Hailsham described it 30 years ago as an "elective dictatorship". We are the barrier to that today.

Lord Richard: My Lords, perhaps I may respond directly to the noble Lord, Lord McNally. His argument fell into two parts: first, that the House of Lords has the power to say no; and, secondly, that in this case it ought to say no. The argument would be nonsense if the second part were not taken in with the first. Let us examine the first part—that the House of Lords has the right to say no. I expect that it does. I do not have statutes in front of me, but I expect that what the noble Lord says about the legal position between the two Houses is probably right. But it is not a question of rights; it is a question of judgment. It is question of whether it makes any sense in the operation of the British constitution for this House to insist on something which twice has been rejected by the House at the other end of the corridor.
	I am bound to say, looking at that part of the Opposition—not that part of it, but that part of it—that when they were in government they would conceivably—

Lord Richard: My Lords, with respect, I will not give way. I listened to the noble Lord in peace. He should subside for a time.
	I cannot imagine that the Conservatives, when they were in government, would conceivably have accepted a doctrine which in essence gives this House a veto over the decisions of the other House. It is not on. However you look at it, this House is nominated; this House is not elected; that House is elected.

The Earl of Erroll: My Lords, we do not have a power of veto in this House—all we have is the power to delay things. If we keep on voting no, they will then use the Parliament Act. The only consequence of that is that the Home Office will have to vote one more year before it can have its new, shiny, half-a-billion-pound-a-year department to issue the ID cards. That will be the sole consequence. Therefore, we might as well push the matter to the limit to point out that the Magna Carta established the concept that the Executive should not have an unfettered right to do what they want. Since then, Parliament has tried to control the Executive. Unfortunately, the balance of power has changed in another place over the past century in such a way that the Executive to a large extent now control another place and what goes through. The strange doctrine has arisen that the Government have the right to get their business through Parliament—meaning that the Executive have a right to get their business through Parliament. That is the tail wagging the dog and is the opposite of what Magna Carta said. We need to remember that.
	The other point, which the noble Lord, Lord McNally, made so well, is that if governments are being elected by a minority of the electorate, what they put in their manifesto statement is very important because that is what the people put them up there to do. For them then to say that they have changed their mind is very dangerous, because you effectively have then elective dictatorship. That is what we are seeing happen. To answer the earlier question, if they had more than 50 per cent or perhaps 60 per cent of the electorate voting for them, maybe we might rethink. But until that situation arises, let us leave it as it is. We do not have a power of veto but we do have a power of delay. I see no problem in using it. It might change things, because it will give people time to think about the issue a bit harder and see whether they really do want to push the Bill through in a year's time.
	The right reverend Prelate said that people did not have to worry about things like this a century ago. In the 1850s Britain did not have passports and ID cards, and we could go to the Continent and do what we liked. The continentals could not; they had ID cards, and unless you were either a criminal and bribed your way or one of the ruling elite, you could not move around the place and work where you liked, which is part of the point of this entire debate. I entirely agree with my noble friend Lord Monson, because I am very annoyed that I will be one of the few people who will be liable to a £1,000 fine if I do not notify a change of address quickly enough when I need to renew my passport. Most of the population will be quite free of that obligation.

Lord Carter: My Lords, with regard to the Parliament Act, we ought to be entirely clear what we are talking about. The noble Lord, Lord McNally, and the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, have said, "Use the Parliament Act". That Act has been used only once on a whipped vote on a major item of government policy, and that was the Parliament Act 1949. The Acts since—the Act changing the age of consent, the Hunting Act and the War Crimes Act—were all passed on free votes. The only other one was the European Parliamentary Elections Act, which, as I know the noble Lords, Lord Strathclyde and Lord Henley, will remember, was an arrangement between the two parties.
	The official Opposition have to decide whether the killing of the Identity Cards Bill for a year or longer is the issue on which they wish to force the will of this House. I have just had a quick count: there are more than 20 former Members of the other House sitting on the Opposition Benches. Perhaps they will win today. I think they intend to vote—it would be awfully hard for them not to do so today—but then the official Opposition will have to think very carefully indeed. Is this the issue on which they wish to create a precedent?
	Former Chief Whips have a very long memory. If the official Opposition create this precedent, we shall eventually use it. It will be a long time before they are in government, but we shall remember it. This is a major step: the first time since 1949 that the official Opposition have forced the use of the Parliament Act, which has been suggested. It will be interesting if we hear again from the official Opposition whether they agree with the use of the Parliament Act. I will give way to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, if he will tell me whether the official Opposition are prepared to envisage the use of the Parliament Act on this Bill?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I found the noble and learned Lord's intervention extraordinary. He will be very cautious about asperity of speech, but I think that he has gone very near its mark.
	Let us look at the position that we are in. In response to the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord McNally, about my demeanour, I of course thank him for his compliment in relation to charm. I take in good measure the fact that he finds me scary. I do not necessarily think that that is how the whole House finds me, but I am content if it is so.
	The Government do not rely on the Salisbury convention in our arguments; we rely on the fact that the amendments have been rejected twice by the elected House. As my noble friend Lord Carter pointed out, it is noble Lords opposite who are relying on what is—I regret to say—a perverse version of the Salisbury convention, according to which the Opposition can ignore the will of the elected House on the basis that they contend that we have not complied with our own manifesto.
	The noble Lord, Lord McNally, encourages the Government to rely on the Parliament Acts as a mode of general disposal for all our legislation. We need to pause long and hard in relation to that. The reason I say that that is the natural consequence of what he proposes is that, if history continues to repeat itself, this House will find itself in a position similar to this, time and again. We ask the other place to think again, and it does. We repeat our request, and it responds. Sometimes it gives this House huge pleasure when it responds, because it has the wisdom to agree with us. On other occasions, it has the audacity to disagree. It is entitled to its audaciousness because the people of this country elected it and did not elect us. Therefore it is entitled to have its say because, when the time comes, it is its Members—not us—who will go back to the country and say, "I plead for your vote", and the people of this country will have an opportunity to reject them.
	For so long as our constitution remains as it is, we in this House have the privilege of not suffering the consequences of our own conceit. Therefore, we have to think very carefully as to how our conventions have evolved. The respect in which this House is held is rightly high because we have acted judiciously; that is our history. My noble friend Lord Carter is absolutely right to remind us that this would be the first time since 1949 when we would have departed from that.
	The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, sought to suggest that this was really only a tiny little amendment, of no fundamental consequence. In case there is any misunderstanding, this is one of the most fundamental clauses in the Bill. The reason that it is of fundamental importance is that it goes to the very root of how we have constructed the way in which ID cards will be implemented. It goes to costs, in terms of facilities. We need to understand its very nature.
	The noble Lord, Lord Phillips, spoke about Sweden, Finland and Denmark. I say to him that we have to remember that they have compulsory population registers. That is what we were talking about: the register. That is an important consideration.
	Looking at the other issues that have been raised, I was taken aback that the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, talked about abandonment of policies. I was trying to count in my mind how many policies noble Lords opposite have now abandoned—immigration policy, selective education, health passports and opposition to student fees. I would respectfully invite the noble Baroness to remember that the current leadership of her party has very little connection with that which went before. We have not abandoned these provisions or the way in which we dealt with this matter. We have affirmed and confirmed that what we said we were going to do we are about to do.
	I invite noble Lords to give real weight to what was said by the right reverend Prelate, who, if I may respectfully say so, expressed himself with great clarity, proportion and balance. My noble friend Lord Peston was right in his powerful intervention to remind the House of what our role is. The comments of my noble friends Lord Richard and Lord Barnett were also right. They have the sagacity to guide us, and I think that we should listen carefully.
	We now have to make a decision. The noble Lord, Lord Monson, talked about a major difference. On driving licences, we already have a provision that if one fails to notify a change of address, a £1,000 fine is liable. We know that that is the case. On these provisions, I remind your Lordships that the scheme that will operate under the first stage differs from the compulsory stage. We have already said that those matters are to be returned to. I will not again go through, as I did last time, the difference between the database and the information you have to provide for ID cards. I set it out on the previous occasion—I remind your Lordships that there are very few differences indeed.
	We have once again had the privilege of having a very extensive debate. One has to ask just a couple of questions. What is new in the arguments that we have explored today and which differs from the two occasions when we discussed the matter before? If the noble Baroness opposite succeeds in the vote, we propose to ask the other place to think again, but on what basis? What is the new fact that they have failed to give adequate consideration to on the previous occasion that we are inviting them to consider again? I have not detected one. In that case, are we simply going to ask them again and again and again, until they—and, frankly, we—lose the will to continue?
	I hear reference to "the will to live", but I know that this House is more resilient. For as long as the noble Lord, Lord Renton, stays in his place, we can all know that we have a long journey yet to make.
	I know that noble Lords enjoy these debates, but there is a time when we have to come to an end. I hope that we have now absolutely exhausted ourselves in relation to this issue and that we will not have to return to it again—and we will not trouble the other place to shout even louder than on the two occasions that they have said "no".
	I propose that we now conclude and that this matter should not be pressed to a vote; if it is, I invite noble Lords to vote for this House's reputation and to vote for the other place.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, the first thing to clarify is that, because the other place gave an amendment in lieu and did not simply reject our amendment, we are not at the end of the road. That may depress many of your Lordships, but I provide that information as a matter of fact.
	The other thing worth saying is that last Monday, the Home Secretary, Charles Clarke, in levelling his defence against our proposal to make the scheme voluntary, did not in any sense call upon the constitutional justification of the Commons' position that has been the mainstay of the noble Baroness's closing speech and has been the subject of speeches from various noble Lords. Mr Clarke attempted to justify the Government's case according to the issues that he raised in the other place—none of them were constitutional issues; they related to the merits and demerits of this Bill. It was those arguments that I sought to address in opening the debate on my Motion.
	It is inevitable, I fear, that there will be repetition in the proceedings as we pursue them under the Parliament Act, because, frankly, the only tools at our disposal are to come back, come back and come back. It is scarcely surprising that there no brand new points were raised in this debate.
	What I accept completely is that this House should not return this measure to the Commons without grave and considered thought. I attempted to say that earlier, and the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, was kind enough to say that he still supported our arguments but, for constitutional reasons, would not support us in the Lobby. In my point that he picked up, I was saying that I believed that this was the exceptional case which did warrant taking the process to its conclusion. That process, as my noble friend Lord McNally said, was put there for a purpose.
	The Parliament Act was not legislated for on a whim or without immense care and consideration. There were two elections leading up to it—but what was arrived at gave this place powers that we are now exercising. Apart from the merits of the Bill itself, the only constitutional issue is whether we are right this evening to take this one whole step further—whether we are right to put it back to the Commons in the hope that, even now, it may think again or, at least, may compromise again.
	It is for each and every one of your Lordships to decide whether you think this is such an important matter. The noble Baroness talked about the respect with which this place will be held. Yes, there is a respect issue if we put the matter back to the Commons tonight. But there is another respect issue that is much broader and deeper—whether this Government should be allowed to pursue a measure on a compulsory basis, when they expressly and specifically said that it would be voluntary. I have to tell your Lordships that I have never had such a unanimous mailbag in my eight years here. That is not a long time. I have not had a single representation made by any organisation or individual in support of the Government's position in making this card compulsory for every citizen.
	However, a great many organisations and individuals have said to me, "Relieve us of a step that we believe will take this wonderful country of ours one pace further along a road down which we do not wish to proceed". That is a road towards a managerial state, an intrusive state and a surveillance state. We have had a great deal of legislation—I shall not bore noble Lords with it—which has added to those characteristics since this Government came to power.
	I end by appealing to your Lordships to share with me the sense that this is a Bill of the highest possible importance, the consequences of which will be long term and strategic and could go to the whole culture of our society. On that basis and that basis alone, I wish to test the opinion of the House.

Baroness Byford: My Lords, this amendment deals again with the Rural Development Service. In Committee, the Minister stated:
	"A large part of the Rural Development Service's functions, including the delivery of the agri-environment schemes . . . will be the responsibility of Natural England".—[Official Report, 24/1/06; col. 1101.]
	He also said that it was neither legally necessary nor appropriate to mention that fact in the Bill. At that time, we agreed to disagree with him.
	Our main reason for bringing this issue back on Report is because of the doubts surrounding the funding of Natural England. The money that goes out of the door in the form of agri-environment scheme funding is presumably not in question. It will be what it will be, and will be made available either via Defra or directly from the Treasury. We do not know. Perhaps the Minister will be kind enough to disabuse me if I have got it wrong.
	The money that enables Natural England to administer the schemes is, however, a rather different matter. If there is no reference to the transfer of responsibilities, will the necessary funding be made available at the same level as when the task was part of the RDS? Or will there be discussions about how many staff are needed and which computer hardware or software is required? Or will they all be transferred? How much will be devoted to the accountancy systems which are, presumably, fairly sophisticated?
	It seems fairly well accepted that the Government are trying to cut back on expenditure wherever possible. Part of that is simply reducing the funding that they allow for certain items—national parks, for example, as we discussed in Committee—and of shifting responsibility for the delivery away from government to, for instance, local authorities. An example of the latter is the Chancellor's promise of free local transport for the over-60s, for example, which has resulted in some councils having to consider raising council tax by up to 2 per cent. We should not like to see the delivery of agri-environment schemes compromised by lack of funds.
	I refer to the Minister's letter to me of 29 January, as it underlines my concern. It says:
	"Following the Curry Commission recommendations, the Government has made clear its desire to shift resources by modulating . . . funds from Pillar 1 subsidies to Pillar 2. The UK has been at the forefront of voluntary modulation for several years. It is true that modulation will have an effect on the amount of subsidy that farmers receive but our industry has remained amongst the most competitive and sustainable in the EU. The agreement reached also provides for the possibility to allow transfers of up to 20% of Pillar 1 funds to Pillar 2. There is a provision in the agreement which allows Member States to choose whether or not to co-finance transferred funds, adding incentive to transfer funds to rural development".
	However, the letter goes on clearly to state:
	"No decision has yet been taken about whether the Government will match-fund additional transfers from Pillar 1 to Pillar 2. It is clear that the decision reached will have an effect on the amount of funds needed to transfer to deliver rural development, including the agri-environment programme".
	That is why I have returned to the matter today. I beg to move.

Baroness Byford: My Lords, while I thank the Minister for her response, I believe she would accept that I am still quite concerned for the long-term. In her reply, she mentioned that some responsibility would go down to the RDAs and that some things would be done through secondary legislation. Can she share with the House what sort of things would come in secondary legislation? If not, I should be grateful if she could come back to me on that between now and Third Reading.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 6 not moved.]
	Schedule 1 [Natural England]:
	[Amendments Nos. 7 to 45 not moved.]
	Clause 2 [General purpose]:
	[Amendments Nos. 46 and 47 not moved.]

Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, the Bill is clear that the purposes of Natural England are all to do with conservation, protection and preservation. That is absolutely fine, so far as it goes. It means that Natural England, with the Bill as presently drafted, is concerned with the past. My amendment seeks to make part of its functions
	"to assist the containment of global warming".
	Global warming is the present; its more pernicious effects are the future. So, in a sense this little amendment—so simple and plain—brings the past and future together for once. It is here and now that they meet. If we consider global warming, the news is consistently bad. We have just heard that global atmospheric carbon dioxide has increased to its highest level ever. Well, we knew that it was going up, so every year will be the highest; more disconcerting is that it is now also rising at its most rapid annual rate ever.
	The polar ice-caps are breaking up and melting; they are not reforming in winter as they used to. In countries like Switzerland, the glaciers are retreating. At the weekend, I spoke to someone who lives in Switzerland, I asked how the glaciers were being affected. He said that a track that he used to go up 25 years ago to visit a bar that used to be on the edge of the ice is now 40 feet above it. The track itself is dangerous as a result. If you miss your footing there is a 40-foot fall. We have recently had reports of increasing acidification in the oceans due to carbon dioxide absorption. That will damage the reproduction of shellfish, plankton and corals; more importantly, if they are unable to make their shells—which lock up carbon in the form of calcium carbonate—then we restrict the sea's capacity to absorb carbon dioxide. As I have said, the problem of global warming is consistently worsening.
	Many things can be done. When I last introduced this amendment, I suggested the word "development" to assist the containment of global warming in the countryside. That did not find favour, so this time I have used the word "action", which describes nothing in particular yet could be vital in one particular respect. An interesting research paper was published in Science in 2004, entitled Stabilization Wedges: Solving the Climate Problem for the Next 50 Years with Current Technologies. One of the writers' options was forest management; they suggested the planting of large areas of forests in temperate areas. Another was agricultural soils management. Those are both existing technologies; as things which occur in the countryside, they are actions which Natural England could perfectly well participate in and promote.
	I make no apology for bringing forward this amendment. It is important that we get global warming under control for, if we do not, we have no certainty of being able to preserve anything in our present countryside. Two possibilities are being talked about. One is that the Gulf Stream—which produces the equivalent energy around our islands of 30,000 power stations providing heat for us—will cease to flow. If it does, ours becomes more akin to a Nordic climate. The alternative is that warming continues without that effect; if that happens, then we go to a more Mediterranean kind of climate. In both eventualities the continuation of the countryside, as we know it, will not be happening. Natural England will then have an impossible task.
	So, I make no apology for bringing back the amendment. As I said initially, the past and future have to meet somewhere. They are meeting here and now. I beg to move.

Baroness Byford: My Lords, I support my noble friend in his desire to have a wake-up call on the needs of not only conserving and preserving the countryside, but also to look at the effect that climate change will have on that very countryside.
	I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 49 to 52, which are in the group. Amendment No. 49 raises an issue again, but with a subtle difference. We believe that this amendment would improve greatly Natural England's natural purpose clause. The amendment would replace "conserve" with "protect". The difference between the two words is crucial; the word "protect" defines an active stance and, in the opinion of the CPRE standing council it makes the legal difference by placing a duty on Natural England actively to protect the landscape. In contrast, the word "conserve" defines a more passive stance, whereby the status quo is kept intact without a really active engagement.
	In Committee, the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington of Ribbleton, stated that, although the word "protect" is used in reference to biodiversity, it would not be applicable to landscape. She went on to say that using the word "protecting" in relation to biodiversity would prevent any,
	"claims that Natural England should support activities that may enhance biodiversity adversely".—[Official Report, 30/1/06; col. 118.]
	She said that she had no intention of weakening that position. But she stated, too, that biodiversity and landscape were on an equal playing field and that one was not more important than the other. So it is not clear to me why they cannot be treated with the same terminology.
	Further to this, in the Government's documents, the necessity is pointed out of using the word "protect". The Planning Policy Statement 7, published in 2004, in one of its key aims states:
	"The Government's objectives for rural areas are to raise the quality of life and the environment in rural areas through the promotion of the continued protection of the open countryside for the benefit of all, with the highest level of protection for our most valued landscapes and environmental resources".
	We believe that our amendment would ensure the future sustainability of the landscape but, in the light of that statement, it seems a sensible addition to the Bill that would join up the Government's aims in protecting the landscape across the board.
	Referring again to the PPS7, and enlarging on it, as it is the Government's official planning policy, under their key principles on page 7, under 1(iv), they say that,
	"the Government's overall aim is to protect the countryside for the sake of its intrinsic character and beauty, the diversity of its landscapes, heritage and wildlife, the wealth of its natural resources and so it may be enjoyed by all".
	It therefore seems curious to us, and to the CPRE, that reference in the planning policy for local authorities should be stronger than that in Natural England's statutory duty, which I have to say I still find puzzling.
	Our next two amendments seek to leave out "in other ways" in one case and, in the other, to leave out,
	"contributing in other ways to",
	and to insert,
	"supporting rural communities in furtherance of".
	Paragraphs (a) and (d) of subsection (2) contain fairly robust aims. I am sure that we would agree exactly what, for example,
	"conserving and enhancing the landscape",
	involves. "Protecting biodiversity" or "encouraging open-air recreation" are concepts that we can all comprehend, and some of your Lordships have great skills to ensure that those sorts of plans are implemented.
	After that, "contributing in other ways" seems rather vague and wishy-washy and, I would have thought, difficult to justify. Our suggestion for improvement is twofold: either simply to leave out "in other ways" or to reiterate Natural England's affinity with the countryside by giving it a duty to support the work of rural communities in improving their social and economic well-being. I am sure that I am not the only one in this House who receives a constant and unrelenting stream of correspondence from people and organisations who consider that I can be of assistance in their efforts to improve social justice and the workings of the DWP, and the performance of a whole range of service providers, including the protection of our small post offices. It is quite clear that all is not well in our villages, small towns and in our countryside. Nor is it at all well, by any means, for there to be the continuing and growing problems of fly-tipping, litter and the flouting of planning laws, which obviously brings additional difficulties.
	We had a long debate on the substance of Amendment No. 52 in Committee. I said then, and I shall say again, that this is perhaps one of the most important amendments—and it is a matter of balance. I was grateful for the wide range of support that I received from noble Lords when we dealt with the matter in Committee. Some noble Lords suggested that our amendment might be more effective if it had been slightly redrafted. Having gone through the record for those days, I have come back with a slightly different wording, which I hope will encourage noble Lords' continued support and perhaps gain support from others.
	The amendment is quite clear now. It is only in the event of significant conflict that Natural England would have to prioritise its objectives relating to conservation and the environment. The Minister said in Committee:
	"Instances of irreconcilable conflict between access and conservation are rare in practice".—[Official Report, 1/2/06; col. 258.]
	That is the basis of introducing a conflict resolution provision—that it will be used only in those rare instances when Natural England and those other organisations are in a check mate situation. The amendment is emphatically not about giving an environment conservation priority on a day-to-day basis—and I stress that—or in giving conservation automatic precedence or a greater funding priority. I am only well aware that sustainable development is dependent not only on conserving the environment but on the social and economic factors as well.
	Natural England will be one among many. It is far from the only organisation that will be involved in the process of the decision-making or in resolving conflicts of interest. I am sure that in 99.9 per cent of instances that irreconcilable conflict would associate only with proposals by third parties rather than within Natural England itself. Natural England might be involved as a consultee or a stakeholder in the case of development of a policy or management proposal. The Minister made the point in Committee that no other organisation with statutory duty for conservation had a conflict resolution clause. I suggest that no other organisation has been given such a broad remit.
	The Minister mentioned the Environment Agency, the Countryside Council for Wales and the Countryside Agency. When established, however, Natural England will be the sole statutory body for England charged with defending and enhancing the natural environment. It is concerned with all the issues that those agencies cover, and much more. It is precisely because of the contradictory nature of the definition that we believe this amendment is needed.
	The EFRA Select Committee suggested that the conflict resolution and policy implementation would be the job of government offices for the regions, yet at present I understand that those offices do not have the capacity to take on this role. The Minister might clarify that for me. In the absence of that support, Natural England, as the Minister has stated, will be the major champion of the environment, and should have the teeth to implement it. Along those lines, the Minister also gave an indication in Committee that he would undertake to put conflict resolution on the agenda in discussions with the Natural England confederation about statutory guidance. For the interest of other noble Lords, I am grateful to the Minister, Jim Knight, who saw me on Monday this week, along with my honourable friend Jim Pace. He indicated that great thought had been given to this situation.
	I know the Minister will come back on this, but for the sake of the House I will repeat what was said in the letter sent to me on 13 March on conflict resolution:
	"In Committee debate on Natural England's purpose, (the Minister) promised to consider the inclusion of principles for dealing with conflict resolution in Statutory Guidance. We have done this"—
	they have given it consideration—
	"and concluded that it would meet several of the concerns expressed by noble Lords, while preserving the flexibility and independence of Natural England's Board which we consider important".
	The Minister should be able to respond to that at this stage.
	The Minister, Jim Knight, went on to say:
	"I would stress that the Bill requires draft statutory guidance to be consulted on very widely before being finalised",
	but he wanted to raise this issue with me. Subsequently the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Bach, has spoken to me, and I understand that circumstances have slightly altered. In fairness to him, and also to Jim Knight, I should make the House aware that I was made aware, at 3 o'clock today, that perhaps there is a change of heart. However, I hope that setting out why we think our amendment is important reflects the position we find ourselves in at this moment. I end up by having supported my noble friend in his amendment, and spoken to the other amendments standing in my name in this group.

Baroness Young of Old Scone: My Lords, I stand to support Amendment No. 52. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for raising the letter from Mr Jim Knight which was also copied to a number of us with an interest in this issue. The letter, dated 13 March, also kindly gave us a draft text of guidance that could have dealt with the issue of conflict resolution, and indeed was very much in line with the position I proposed in Committee, which I hoped the Minister was taking away. I was therefore pleased to see a copy of the letter, though I was a bit downcast when I learnt, round about 5.35 tonight, that the letter had been passed over and was no longer the Government's intention. I know a week is meant to be a long time in politics, but it appears that two days is now a pretty long time. I am confused about what the Government's position on conflict resolution will be. I understand that we are not to expect that guidance will be forthcoming on this issue and so I want to talk to the substantive issue of the amendment, which would not have been necessary if guidance had been promised.
	I will use the briefing that many of your Lordships will have received from the Country Land and Business Association in relation to this amendment. The association gave an example where it thought it would be inappropriate for there to be guidance or anything on the face of the Bill saying that conservation and landscape should take precedence in extreme circumstances where there is no means of reconciling them and they are of a serious nature. It took the strange example of a person running a tourist attraction in an SSSI who wanted to develop visitor facilities in the midst of the site, the construction of which would be detrimental to the provisions of the SSSI. The association went on to say that if the amendment were adopted, Natural England would have no possibility of allowing that development to go ahead. It said that there might be perfectly good grounds for allowing it to go ahead and that,
	"A small scale development"—
	in the SSSI—
	"creating a couple of jobs and bringing in a bit of money for the landowner which could be reinvested in the area, may well do more for achieving the general purpose than a refusal".
	I remind your Lordships that SSSIs are a very small proportion of the land surface of this country. They are the jewels in the crown of nature conservation, the most priceless and irreplaceable parts of our natural heritage. This briefing was equivalent to saying that you might carve a bit out of a Vermeer or a Picasso so a few local artists would have some canvas to paint on to keep them from going to the wall. That is not quite what we are looking for as the steer for what the Minister at another time called the "trenchant champion" of the natural environment, but it is a good example of the sort of pressure Natural England will undoubtedly face on a daily basis, and shows why the Minister needs at least to give it guidance, if not to put a conflict resolution clause on the face of the Bill. I know he will say that he has already said, I think on Second Reading, that protected sites will of course take priority, but it is clear that there will continue to be debate about what takes priority when economic development and conservation and landscape are in conflict with each other.
	I would have been extremely happy if the Minister had underpinned his wish that Natural England be a trenchant champion of the natural environment by giving it the sort of guidance that it was indicated to us on Monday would be given. Now that it will not be given, there is a real need for Amendment No. 52, and I hope the noble Baroness will divide the House on this.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I should make it clear that when amendments in a group are so disparate, and when noble Lords have spoken both for and against different amendments within the group, would not be wise to apply the outcome of the first amendment to all the amendments. We would end up with Members unable to vote—having voted in favour of the first amendment, they may wish to vote against on the second, for example.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, the amendment takes us back to research into biodiversity—and other issues—which I raised in Committee. When we debated it, the Minister said that the National Environment Research Council's decisions on the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology were out for consultation until the middle of February and that,
	"therefore no decisions have been made".—[Official Report, 8/2/06; col. 764.]
	Now that they have been made—and I am sure that noble Lords will have received the very helpful letter of 13 March from Professor Alan Thorpe, chief executive of the Natural Environment Research Council—can the Minister say whether the Government are satisfied with the outcome? I do not think he will be surprised to learn that I still have severe reservations. Although there have been slightly fewer cuts and a very slight increase in funding, meaning that slightly less of the programme will be cut, I stand by many of the arguments I advanced in Committee. Such research is particularly critical at this time. As we face enormous pressures due to climate change and our understanding of the inter-relationship of these things leads us to conclude that more research is needed more urgently than ever, it is particularly unfortunate that such a cut has been proposed.
	Other facts have come to light since we debated this in Committee; I have, naturally, carried out further research. It seems that the Select Committee on Science and Technology's fifth report stated that, following the settlement for science announced in the 2002 spending review, NERC's income from the science budget will increase from £219 million in 2002-03 to £350 million in 2005-06. The rationale behind this increase was to allow NERC to take the lead in science, the earth's life support systems, climate change, and so on. Last year funding reached £314 million, but that is still well short of £350 million. Having committed to that budget in 2003, have the Government now decided to make cuts in it. If so, such a position is particularly unfortunate. A breakdown of the funding for the Natural Environment Research Council shows that £8.1 million comes from the UK private sector. I wonder how the UK private sector feels about the proposed cuts and what percentage of the programme that is being cut is indeed funded by the private sector?
	Finally—and I was not as aware of this when we debated it in Committee—there is the responsibility line for the Natural Environment Research Council, which was set up under the Science and Technology Act 1965, I believe by Royal Charter. I only recently became aware of the difference between that sort of set up and the normal sort of quango we debate in your noble Lordships' House. Under the set up of the Natural Environment Research Council, Parliament is given a much wider overview of what is happening under the council. Indeed, the council's own website helpfully gives a diagram that shows Parliament sitting at the top, represented by the Secretary of State. The advertisement for the two vacancies on the Natural Environment Research Council, which appears on its website, helpfully says that the council is responsible to Parliament and other citizens.
	When something is as contentious as this, is there a mechanism that should be employed to refer the matter at least to the Select Committee in order to review the situation? It is surely very unusual that such a body of eminent scientists as have been very assiduous in writing to the press, in contacting us, and talking about this, speak with one voice, so concerned are they about cuts in the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology's programme. This is of central importance in NERC's work now, so they are frustrated at having been unable to change the direction of the decision taken. When the Royal Charter refers to Parliament being in prime position with regard to the research council, I wonder what that means, given that there is deep unhappiness over decisions taken. Where is Parliament's role in making its voice heard? I beg to move.

The Duke of Montrose: My Lords, I declare my interest, in that I am on a fundraising committee for an environmental research station in Scotland, which also receives funds under the Natural Environment Research Council's powers. It is very important that the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, has raised this subject and it is good that we should see what can be done about this. The amendment states that:
	"Natural England must have due regard to the purposes of the Natural Environment Research Council."
	Presumably they must also have regard to the findings of the bodies that are brought out by the Natural Environment Research Council. In that case, we wish to support the amendment.

Baroness Northover: rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what co-ordination there is through the international community to resolve the conflict in northern Uganda.
	My Lords, I am very glad to have secured this debate on northern Uganda. I am especially grateful to all noble Lords who will be speaking tonight. As we have just heard, each of them will have a very short time; nevertheless, it shows a real commitment that so many wish to take part. The number of speakers reflects the huge expertise in this House on this part of Africa and the concern that people feel about the conflict in the region. I thank all noble Lords.
	It is now 20 years since conflict began in northern Uganda, yet so little international attention seems to be directed to this problem. That is surprising for a number of reasons. The conflict threatens to destabilise countries around, such as the DRC and Sudan, as well as Uganda itself. But above all, this is a conflict that has taken a terrible toll on children. War can exact a terrible price from women and children. But what has happened in northern Uganda is quite simply on a different level. The deliberate targeting of children is utterly appalling. Whatever the roots of this conflict, there can be no justification whatsoever for the Lord's Resistance Army targeting children as it has done. I welcome the fact that the International Criminal Court has issued arrest warrants for the five leaders of the LRA—even if it has made negotiation with the LRA more difficult.
	We know about the abduction of children and the way that children flee to towns at night in the hope of finding shelter, so that they are not stolen in the night. How can it be that we are paying so little attention? As Amnesty says:
	"Children are bearing the brunt of the ongoing violence in northern Uganda".
	UNICEF calculates that as many as 25,000 children have been abducted by the LRA for use as soldiers and sex workers since the conflict began. Children's rights are violated daily. The LRA also targets killings, abductions and rape at the wider civilian population.
	We know that the LRA is full of child soldiers—children who are brutalised and feel unable to return home. We know that girls are stolen for prostitution. And yet the world has turned a blind eye. That simply cannot continue. This surely must be the first proper test of what the countries agreed at the UN last September, when they said:
	""We believe that today, more than ever before, we live in a global and interdependent world".
	They agreed that collectively the UN had the responsibility to protect populations from crimes against humanity. That surely applies here. In 20 years the Ugandan Government have failed, for whatever reasons, to bring peace to the north of its country. The result is that crimes against humanity are committed there daily. Will the Minister say what role the new UN peace-building commission might play here?
	Many NGOs felt that when the UK chaired the UN Security Council at the end of last year—maybe it was chairing too many things at the time—the opportunity should have been taken to pass a resolution specifically on northern Uganda. Will the Minister tell us why that did not happen, and what might have been the reaction of China and Russia to any such proposals? Nevertheless, we have UN Resolution 1653, passed in January this year on the Great Lakes region, which includes reference to northern Uganda. How will that now be taken forward?
	There is the proposal from Jan Egeland, the Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs, that a panel of experts should be convened on northern Uganda. There is also the proposal that there should be a UN special envoy to look at the problem. The international crisis group recently gave strong endorsement to both proposals, stating that,
	"the UN Security Council should recognise the LRA poses a threat to international peace and security",
	and must implement both these proposals. What action are the Government taking to ensure that that is done?
	Will the Minister tell us when he thinks the Secretary-General will report on these matters to the Security Council? Save the Children and Oxfam, among others, told me that this would happen in 12 days—on 27 March—so this debate was timely, but I hear from the FCO that this may not be the case. I spoke to someone earlier, as the noble Lord will be aware. I should like his comments on that.
	That report needs to be made; and it needs to be strong and effective. It must not be delayed. Actions need to follow from it. Clearly there needs to be a comprehensive strategy to end the war. Those who have been indicted by the ICC must be apprehended. The Ugandan military and other forces must do more to protect civilians. There needs to be dialogue with other members of the LRA. The Ugandan Government must be clearer that they support effective amnesties for those wishing to leave the LRA. Support has to be given to those who leave to prepare them so that they can best re-enter civilian life. I look forward to hearing the Minister's comment on all these proposals.
	DfID is already helping with humanitarian relief, but more will need to be done to assist those now in the camps, and as they seek to leave those camps. They must not be marginalised if a lasting solution is to be found. I note that President Museveni stated last Tuesday that he is preparing to resettle displaced people from their camps, stating that the region is now peaceful. That seemed a little surprising. Do the Government have reason to believe that the security situation in northern Uganda has improved enough for people to be moved out of camps? If so, maybe we can all go home.
	This is an extremely complicated situation. The LRA has committed the most appalling atrocities. But this is a conflict which military action alone is never likely to solve. Not only do we need to see all parties seriously seeking a solution, we must make sure that the international community does not lose sight of this conflict. It is by spotlighting the plight of those in northern Uganda that we will surely encourage the action that the international community must now take. In those actions, I trust that the UK Government will take a leading role.

Baroness D'Souza: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, for initiating this debate. I too endorse what she has said, perhaps with one exception. From answers given by the Minister in previous debates and to Questions, I would like to acknowledge that the UK is clearly to the fore in negotiating UN Resolution 1653 and in providing support to the NGOs in the area, among other actions. I want to say a little about the important development which is the International Criminal Court mission to investigate the current conflict and to make arrests. I am indebted to Lorna McGregor who initiated a two-day workshop for the International Bar Association with 100 members of civil society organisations, the legal community from the north and from Kampala to discuss the work of the ICC within the national justice system. The preliminary conclusions from the workshop are quite interesting, certainly for conflict resolution work in the north of Uganda.
	There is a feeling that the ICC intervention from the outside may mask the lack of political will on the part of the Government to take decisive action to stop the war. Having failed in this mission, the decision to allow in the ICC was clearly politically motivated. That reflects a wider perception—widespread in Africa—that while the international community is desperately needed, the solutions must heed sovereignty and must come from within.
	The workshop also highlighted the failure of the ICC to make equal comment about the abuses, of which there are many, by the armed forces. The displaced peoples' camps are a terrifying experience, especially for women. I am currently taken up with concerns about a young university student, who was rescued from the LRA by army troops only to be raped and abused by government troops during three months in the camp prior to her escape. She is now in the UK with a baby daughter, not knowing whether the baby was fathered by the LRA or the army and is facing possible deportation.
	As ever, the resolutions, the statements, the promises and the human rights reports are all necessary. What is even more vital is that the recommendations be implemented. For example, it is crucial that pressure is maintained within and outwith Uganda if the UN resolution is to have an impact on the ground. The UN Secretary-General's report must be submitted and discussed before the Chinese assume the presidency at the end of this month, so that the Security Council is in no doubt what its action should be. As has already been suggested and pointed out by the noble Baroness, it is strongly suggested that there be a special high-level envoy appointed. That could happen immediately without any further resolution. It is a matter of a decision being taken and implemented.
	There should also be an investigation into LRA actions, which might be helpful in clarifying how to reduce the violence and there should be widespread understanding by the international community that military action has not yet proved to be the answer, and, therefore, there has to be explicit ongoing support for political mediation and peace-building initiatives.

Lord Anderson of Swansea: My Lords, I too congratulate the noble Baroness on her initiative, I endorse what she has said about the LRA and its victims and can see no case for negotiating with Kony and the indictees, for example. I shall make two points. First, with the current focus on the flawed election in Uganda as a whole, we should put that in the context of a president who, overall, has done fairly well. In the mid-1980s, I spoke for the opposition on Africa, when President Museveni came to power. Who can forget the atrocities, the insecurity, particularly in the Luwero triangle, the fact that since there has been successful economic developments, and one of the more enlightened policies on AIDS in Africa as a whole with modernisation and stability? Of course, the president has never won over the north, which, in any event, is Obote territory. The electoral geography of the last presidential election showed that the north central area and the north-west were heavily against the president, but he won in the north-east. At the time of the election, he said that the war was largely over. Therefore, it is perhaps right to consider not just the Acholi territory in the north-west, but also other areas such as the west Nile and Karamoja in the north-east.
	Here I declare an interest as an adviser to a small British charity which includes two other Members of your Lordships' House, Viscount Ingleby, and the noble Lord, Lord Hylton. The charity is the Christian International Peace Service (CHIPS) which has been in north-east Uganda for 15 years, working for reconciliation between the Karamojong and the Teso tribes. The work is concentrated, therefore, on the border area between the tribes, where there was a massacre during the drought period of 2000. The charity works in agriculture, community and water development and veterinary services with para-vets moving with the cattle—a team composed wholly of Ugandans. CHIPS has identified a number of problems. One is the problem of the definition of internally displaced persons. No one is quite sure how many camps there are. There was a particular criticism of the quality of food provided by the World Food Programme, which is often said to be "bitter". There were allegations of delays and corruption. By contrast, a notable success has been the work of a small UK charity, the Teso Development Trust, which distributes food through the Church of Uganda and the Pentecostal Assemblies of God Church.
	Finally, it is clearly highly administratively convenient for the Government to use the WFP, which reduces costs, but there is a strong body of local opinion that the WFP and, indeed, the national Government, should in part be bypassed because of corruption, and that aid should increasingly be directed to small and highly motivated non-governmental organisations.

Lord Howarth of Newport: My Lords, it is an international disgrace that the horror of northern Uganda has been allowed to persist for as long as it has. The World Health Organisation—an organisation not given to facile emotionalism—has described the situation there as a very serious humanitarian emergency, undoubtedly among the very worst in the world today, and possibly the most neglected by the international media and the relief community. It has persisted as a consequence of cynicism and incompetence in Uganda and indifference in the international community. Thousands of UN resolutions have been passed in the past 20 years but, until just the other day, none related to northern Uganda.
	The disproportion of this situation is grotesque. Reliable estimates suggest that some 250 LRA guerrillas are keeping 1.2 million internally displaced people in camps and many more exiled from their homes. President Museveni has admitted that he could switch off the war. He keeps saying that he is going to do so, and keeps announcing that he has a plan. But from the record that we have seen, it is impossible to rely on him to take the action that he could other than under genuine, consistent and well co-ordinated international pressure. There is now more United Nations interest and activity, and I congratulate the Government on the part that they played in securing the passing of Resolution 1653. We look forward to the Secretary-General's report. The MONUC contingent sought to arrest the LRA leaders but, tragically, that effort was botched and the seven Guatemalan soldiers died in horrible circumstances.
	Our own Government have a very special responsibility for Uganda because of our historic presence there. I hasten to say that I know that my noble friend Lord Triesman is deeply personally committed and is working hard, both bilaterally and through the United Nations, to achieve what he can on behalf of the Government. We need the Foreign Office and DfID to act together—I am not always convinced that they do—within the country. I suspect that, in the past, the Foreign Office and DfID have been too charmed by Museveni and too focused on the south. It does not belittle the achievements of the Ugandan Government in the south to say that what has failed to happen in the north is utterly inexcusable.
	I believe that we must place a very tight conditionality on the support that we give the Government of Uganda. We must use our influence, which ought to be large because of the scale of our aid, to secure better co-ordination. In the north, there is welter of agencies and NGOs—there are some 200 NGOs in Gulu—that are small and under-resourced, with different remits and overlapping accountabilities, and that are tripping over each other. They are staffed by committed and devoted people, but I am afraid their efforts are all too chaotic and they are much less effective than they could be. One of the important proposals of the WHO report last July was for a systematic mapping of need to lead to a rational allocation of resources and, of course, to increased resources. Will the Minister say whether that mapping has been undertaken or whether it will be undertaken?

Baroness Whitaker: My Lords, as young men and women increasingly flee the LRA, which conscripted them so brutally, as the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, and others have said most eloquently, there is another aspect of the conflict to be resolved—their reintegration. Apart from reconciliation—which is astonishingly well handled by the Acholi people and the Amnesty Commission under Justice Onega—there is, or should be, work, the great reintegrator.
	My right honourable friend Hilary Benn has quite rightly cut our direct budget support to the Government of Uganda because of concerns about the democratic process under Mr Museveni's rule. But these funds will not leave Uganda; they will go—just over £20 million—directly towards the humanitarian relief effort in northern Uganda. A major element of that humanitarian effort must also be to rehabilitate those young men and women who lost their childhood in the wastes of the Sudanese training grounds provided to the LRA by the Sudanese Government.
	At a receiving camp for surrendered soldiers supported by UNICEF, which is one of the great forces for good in the north—I should declare an interest as a trustee of the UK committee—I spoke to Joseph, 18, whose two siblings died from cholera when they were all abducted into the LRA, who had limped with his untreated wounds for five hours through the forest to give the LRA the slip, and who then spent six months in hospital. He has the height of a 13 year-old.
	All Joseph had been offered was enlistment in the national army. It would have been better for him to have moved entirely away from fighting and slaughter. The Ugandan Government are not thought to have given much priority to vocational and technical education, preferring, like some others, so-called prestigious academic qualifications. But modern agriculture, food processing and local services would be of far more use to these communities and could be the lifeblood of these thousands of children's return to normality. Perhaps I may ask my noble friend, does DfID's humanitarian assistance and what it can muster from the international community also include support for specialised mental healthcare for these traumatised young people and vocational education and skills training?

Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, I too would like to add my congratulations to the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, on securing this debate. Many interesting contributions have come from all sides of the House. It is an increasingly heated situation, especially as the ramifications of the worst drought in 20 years take hold in east Africa. These hardships will only compound what Reuters called the second-worst "forgotten" humanitarian crisis.
	With only three minutes to wind up from these Benches, I can only touch on the main issues surrounding this crisis—a significant blot on Uganda's success to date—and ask the Minister three questions. First, what discussions have Her Majesty's Government had with the authorities regarding the claims made by the International Crisis Group that the Ugandan army, while powerful enough to defeat the LRA, has failed to do so due to corruption, abusive behaviour and poor organisation, despite assurances from President Museveni?
	Ninety per cent. of internally displaced persons in the north live in overcrowded camps where water is of such importance, as stressed by my noble friend Lord Freeman. The camps are often accessible only with a military escort. The security situation is such that non-governmental organisations no longer operate outside the main towns. In all of this, the tragedy is the damage inflicted on the children of Uganda. It is vital that they receive an education to provide them with skills and hope for the future. Secondly, therefore, what steps have Her Majesty's Government taken to put pressure on the authorities to provide a free education for these children?
	I have been unable to cover the many issues raised today. We are faced with an escalating situation that cannot start to be rectified until peace is achieved. The noble Lord, Lord Judd, rightly mentioned the importance of controlling the availability of small arms. In the mean time, there are fears that Uganda's president may now use his mandate to crush the opposition and take a nosedive into dictatorship.
	I hope that the Minister will repeat what he has said before—that Uganda is a government priority. I hope that Her Majesty's Government have a plan towards a co-ordinated approach to remove the tarnish from this once shining example of Africa. Thirdly, therefore, will they put pressure on NePAD to encourage full and proper use of the peer review mechanism, to hold the Uganda Government to account over their support and treatment of IDPs in the north, as well as encouraging action with regard to the International Criminal Court warrants?

Lord Triesman: My Lords, I join others in thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, and all noble Lords who have participated in a sobering debate.
	I can confirm that ending the conflict in northern Uganda is a government priority and remains so. In a sequence of telling illustrations, the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, reminded us exactly why it should remain so. Many of the issues raised by my noble friend Lord Judd and the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, about small arms, remain part of the general agenda, not just that in relation to Uganda. We believe that an international convention is desperately needed to stop trafficking in such arms.
	For nearly 20 years, the so-called Lord's Resistance Army has carried out atrocities of unspeakable barbarism and cruelty. Children have been abducted and brutalised, families torn apart, and the insecurity and fear that it has engendered has resulted in about 1.7 million people being sheltered in internally displaced persons' camps—nearly two thirds of northern Uganda's entire population. No right-thinking person could fail to be moved or angered by the senseless and shameful loss of life and the continued suffering.
	Primary responsibility for protecting the people of northern Uganda and bringing this crisis to an end must rightly lie with the government of Uganda. The noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso, made the point, with which I agree, that we must continue to support the government there if we want to see growth and development, a spread of democracy and the north embraced in any advances made. That is a difficult proposition, given what is happening.
	In all my discussions with President Museveni—and there have now been quite a number—he has consistently assured me that he is committed to seeing peace and security return to the north. He will not accept that any part of his country is a disaster area. When he makes his statements, he does so in a way that, in face-to-face discussion, would convince anybody. I believe him, but I also believe that he has no proven capacity to turn off the war—to use the phrase that my noble friend Lord Howarth did—because experience tells a different story. Aside from the moral imperative, I accept that it is clearly in his and Uganda's wider interest to do that, if it could. The continuing insecurity creates a negative perception of Uganda, its government and its army in the international community. It also undermines the economic and development gains made over the past 20 years—impressive as some of them have unquestionably been—the potential for future gains and the security of the wider region.
	However, since Uganda launched Operation Iron First in 2002 with the claim that the LRA would be wiped out in three months, the number of people in the IDP camps has tripled. The LRA's attacks continue, not just in northern Uganda, but in southern Sudan, and more recently in the eastern Democratic Republic of Congo. My noble friend Lady Whitaker is completely right to remind us of the spread of this scourge into southern Sudan, with, in the past, the collusion of the government of Sudan. The noble Lord, Lord St John, calls it a regional crisis, which are the right words.
	I am in the paradoxical position of rejecting the claim that President Museveni is not committed to the end of the LRA, though it is clear that that has not been achieved. What are the reasons for the failure of the government of Uganda and its army? A number have been put forward. The noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, mentioned one—corruption in the military. Consistent in all these claims is that elements within the Uganda army and establishment have no desire to see an end to that conflict, for reasons of personal profit, and that abuses among the northern population are being sanctioned and perpetrated by some elements. Those are serious and worrying charges. For the sake of the wider credibility of Uganda, and to build trust among the people of the north, these claims need to be subject to a thorough and transparent investigation and charges brought where wrongdoing is found.
	Sadly, questions also surround the capability and effectiveness of the Ugandan army. It is hard not to ask whether it has the capacity for the task. The United Kingdom Government funded a defence review in 2003 designed specifically to deal with these concerns. We believe that full implementation of the recommendations would provide a sound basis to take forward future procurement and training needs. These changes are needed in that army.
	Non-military methods are also needed—there is no purely military solution, as a number of noble Lords have pointed out. That is why the United Kingdom, in co-ordination with other international partners, provided technical, logistical and financial support to the efforts of Betty Bigombe, a former Ugandan Government Minister for the north, to mediate between the parties. The government of Uganda have supported those efforts. They provided the original tasking and agreement without which the talks would not have taken place. Unfortunately, those efforts did not ultimately bear fruit.
	Claims have been made that the government of Uganda did not do enough to support the talks once they were established. I have no doubt, however, that the primary responsibility for the lack of a negotiated settlement rests squarely with the LRA. I have been urged from time to time to think of Kony and Otti as people susceptible to argument and the call for peace and decency, but I see no evidence of that. I see a senseless and gratuitous trail of brutality, murder, disfigurement, torture and rape.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Northover, rightly raised the International Criminal Court. The most senior LRA commanders are now subject to warrants from the ICC. The noble Baroness, Lady D'Souza, was right to say that that does not excuse Uganda from its responsibilities and role in making sure that it acts in northern Uganda, and we will pressure it to do so. Let me deal with the ICC. There can be no impunity for the worst human rights offenders. The place for Kony and Otti is in the dock of the ICC, not in some offered honourable retirement for the acts that have earned them worldwide notoriety—my noble friend Lord Anderson is absolutely right about that point.
	If peace and security are to return to the north, the Ugandan Government, as the noble Baroness, Lady D'Souza, said, need to ensure that those LRA members who are not subject to the ICC indictments are repeatedly alerted to the existence of the Government's amnesty provisions and given the confidence and reassurance they need to lay down their arms and reintegrate into society. My noble friend Lord Judd also made just such a point. This also means the provision of effective support and assistance in reintegrating into their communities. In a new era of multi-party politics, the elected president, Government and Parliament must address all these concerns.
	In some telling questions, the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, asked about MONUC. I believe that MONUC has made a brave and strenuous effort to arrest the criminals wanted by the ICC. It is certainly tasked for that. As we have noted, seven Guatemalan troops gave their lives in recent efforts. MONUC is at full strength under its current mandate. The deployment issues about where it goes and how it pursues criminals must be a matter for it on the ground. But it is a sad fact for the immediate future that the majority of the people of northern Uganda will be dependent on the IDP camps and international humanitarian assistance. My noble friend Lord Howarth also talked about how tragic their circumstances are, and I shall return to that in a moment.
	So while we all wish they were not needed, the United Kingdom is at the forefront of international efforts in this regard, being one of the largest humanitarian donors to Uganda. In 2004-05, we distributed £11 million in humanitarian assistance. In 2005-06, that figure will be more than £20 million. I do not know whether I can easily say that the sums are proportionate, but they are what we believe we can afford in the range of our commitments to the Commission for Africa. Our aid is primarily disbursed through international aid agencies and NGOs such as the WHO and WFP, and helps provide food. As the noble Lord, Lord Freeman, said, more can be done through the NGOs to provide water, sanitation, shelter and protection. I do not rule out the important point made by my noble friend Lord Anderson about a possible contribution by the smaller NGOs in north-east Uganda.
	I say to my noble friend Lord Judd and others on the DfID programme that the majority of the money is delivered, as I think we all know, through direct budget support, governed by the Poverty Eradication Action Plan, agreed in partnership with the government of the north. A considerable part of the £70 million that has been put in so far has gone towards education. The noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, asked about that. I say to my noble friend Lady Whitaker that because it is direct support, the decisions about whether specialised health services should be provided have been a matter for the government of Uganda, but there is obviously great sense in taking her advice.
	We want to see an end to the need for aid. That is why the United Kingdom is at the forefront of co-ordinating the international effort to assist the government of Uganda in dealing with the LRA. The camps offer only a life of poverty—poor nutrition, no schools, no clothing, no bedding, no healthcare and no sanitation. I have no doubt that they strip the heart out of Acholi society. When I think about why people are still there and why they face this dilemma, I say to my noble friend Lord Howarth that the reason, in my view, is not because somebody has a systematic desire—I do not see much prospect of people being able to go home, given President Museveni's recent statements—but because there is no competent military way of resolving the problem that has been demonstrated that would carry any conviction.
	I turn now to the United Nations. With concerted support from the United Kingdom, the Security Council Resolution 1653 was adopted in January this year. It is a positive development; it is the first resolution to detail specific action against the LRA and record its pernicious effect on millions of innocent people. It rightly underscores the primary responsibility of governments in the region to protect their populations, and it requested the Secretary-General to make recommendations to the Security Council on how the United Nations' missions and agencies can assist.
	Other suggestions have been put forward in this regard such as the appointment of a special envoy or a Uganda-specific Security Council resolution. Resolution 1653 does a big part of the job; it was a vital step and was supported widely. There was no opposition to the process from China. The noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, also raised the question about whether there are more developments. I believe that all the developments that have been suggested warrant further investigation. That is well worth doing.
	As the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, said, we want these proposals to achieve outcomes. They must not just be about process. If the effort is put in, it should be about outcomes. My honourable friend Gareth Thomas will therefore be attending a conference in Geneva on 20 March on behalf of the Government to consider how our partners in the international community can best focus the international engagement. We do not know the date that the Secretary-General's report will be available, but I hope that it will be very soon. I also hope that NePAD will look at Uganda, as the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, suggested. It has quite an extensive programme ahead, but there is no reason why it should not do so.
	A number of points have been made in this short debate. I hope that I have responded to the points about the arrest of criminals and the humanitarian response. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, asked about the UN's cluster response. The cluster approach is currently being trialled. It is too early to say whether it will help in returning IDPs, but the signs at the beginning are relatively encouraging. We are closely involved, and we will watch what is happening.
	We were also asked whether we are committed to working with the Ugandan Government to build sustainable peace essential to ensuring the rehabilitation of the north. The community needs to be at the forefront of this effort of improving all the circumstances in the north. The improvement of the road network suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, could be a key part of that. I want to look into that in more detail and if there is more information, I will write to the noble Lord to ensure that he is completely up to date. But the principle is strongly agreed among us.
	During this debate, the undercurrent has been that we all need to do more. I could not agree more—the whole of the international community must do more. I hope that I have clarified much of what is happening and what is planned. Right-thinking people and people of any decency in the government of Uganda and the wider international community want to see an end to the LRA's reign of terror. They want to see the arrest of those indicted by the ICC and the reintegration of the child soldiers that it abducted, maltreated and savaged. Only then will the population of northern Uganda be likely to feel safe enough to leave the camps and return to their homes. I have said that I do not anticipate that that is about to happen with any great speed, and that is a candid assessment of what I see.
	We will continue to press the government of Uganda. As I outlined earlier, it is their country, it is their responsibility. These atrocities are on their territory. We will do all in our power internationally to help ensure that peace and security returns to northern Uganda. We will try to make the security assessments that are needed to ensure that we do it successfully. It is not a matter of blundering around but, as my noble friend Lord Judd said, of doing it with precision. Ultimately the Ugandans must take primary responsibility for achieving this. We are willing partners, but it is their responsibility and we must hold them responsible for whether they step up to this task or not.

Baroness Byford: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for the way in which she has moved the amendment. I am not sure what the Minister's response to it will be, but all through we have expressed our concerns about how the RDAs work and the likelihood that they will have more regard for the bigger urban areas than for the rural areas. So I take the comments that the noble Baroness made.
	I think that this is the only opportunity for me to bring to the attention of noble Lords a particularly important issue. Would this be something that the CRC would deal with? On the issue of affordable housing, some safeguards were put in place in 1992, after a long struggle, which ensured that no more than 80 per cent of affordable housing equity could ever be bought by occupiers of rural shared-ownership houses. That restriction gave landowners, planners and parish councils confidence that those houses would never be sold on the open market. That stayed in place until recently. I understand that, from 1 April, the 80 per cent restriction will be removed straightaway. If that is so, it is a very worrying aspect of an extremely important part of rural life. I was not sure where else I could raise the matter. I have written to the Minister directly on it, but I make no apology for raising it again.
	The issue that my friend Moira Constable raised with Ms Cooper was the right of staircase and rural shared ownership. The difficulty that I find myself in—the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, just referred to the need to alert the DTI to the difficulties—is that the matter actually lies with the ODPM. I thought that both examples sat very well with each other. Here we are creating a new body, which Defra is instigating, but it overlaps with two departments—and maybe several others as well. This is a real issue, and my question, in the light of what the noble Baroness said, is whether this is something on which the commission could have said "Stop, this is one step too far"? Is it a Defra matter or a ODPM matter or a DTI matter? Where does it go?
	I thought that this was an ideal opportunity to raise an issue that would affect the RDAs as well. What input will they have? At the end of the day, who has the final say on what the outcome will be? I apologise for raising the matter, but the issue is extremely urgent, because this will happen on 1 April. I gather that, at the moment, unless we can persuade the Minister and he can talk to other Ministers, it is a fait accompli and there is nothing that we can do about it. It will hugely detrimental in the rural areas to housing that we have now and, more worryingly, for housing that we hope to prepare in future.

Lord Bach: My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment No. 99 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, who moved it in her customary, short and articulate way. The debate then took another course. It was important that the strong expressions of opinion about the issue were heard, even though it is clearly outside the scope of what we are discussing under the amendment. I am not in a position to be able to answer in an adequate way on the issue. I promise to make sure that my honourable friend Jim Knight, the Minister responsible for rural housing in Defra, has his attention directed to tonight's Hansard and what has been said tonight in Parliament. I am sure that he is aware of the matter, and I shall speak to him about it myself. I thank noble Lords who have dealt with it.
	The advice that I have received is that the CRC could not stop the situation because it is a housing regulatory matter. However, I confirm that it is exactly the kind of issue that the CRC might in future pursue with the ODPM as a rural-proofing matter, as the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, said. I hope that noble Lords who have spoken with such feeling about it will excuse me if I say no more about it tonight. I shall return to the amendment.
	The noble Baroness will know that, from April last year, regional development agencies' activities have been driven by what is described as a new tasking framework. That framework requires each RDA to show, in its corporate plan, how it will address the priorities identified in the regional economic strategy for the region, and contribute to delivery of four overarching government PSA targets. One of those overarching targets is sustainable development, a target that we in Defra hold on behalf of government.
	RDAs welcomed the introduction of the strengthened remit for sustainable development and, through their six-monthly reports to Ministers, will provide a summary of how they are contributing to delivery of sustainable development in their regions. That new requirement will be an effective method of ensuring that RDAs not only undertake their activities in a sustainable manner, but contribute to sustainable development in their regions. RDAs are aware of their role in that; I was pleased to hear that Sir Martin Doughty thought that there was genuine interest from the RDAs in that area. In addition to funding sustainable development projects, many RDAs have established environmental management systems, sustainable transport plans and project appraisal tools that help to mitigate the environmental impacts of their operations and activities.
	Although RDAs are already making a significant contribution to the delivery of sustainable development, the steps that the Government have taken to strengthen the framework in which RDAs operate should improve their effectiveness in delivering sustainable developments in the region. Guidance to the RDAs on producing regional economic strategies was reviewed last year to ensure that they and the actions to implement them are based on sustainable development principles, set out in our 2005 national sustainable development strategy.
	I hope that the noble Lady is reassured to some extent, both by what I have had to say and by the meeting she attended earlier this week. Ministers will be looking very closely indeed to make sure that RDAs with any responsibilities carry them out in the manner that Parliament expects.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, Amendment No. 101 revisits an issue that we discussed in Committee—the desirability or otherwise of the Secretary of State to make sure that at least one member of the CRC's board has experience of, and capacity in, the affairs of local authorities.
	We have given the matter some consideration since Committee, and reflected on the points raised by the noble Lords, Lord Renton of Mount Harry and Lord Brooke, among others. We reached the same conclusion as before that it would be restrictive to accept the wording of the amendment, as having written local authority expertise into the Bill's composition, we would need to consider adding similar criteria, covering all the CRCs and any other stakeholders to ensure that their interests were similarly represented on the CRC's board.
	Like the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, at Committee stage, we agreed that the local authority angle was an important one that could be covered by the range of expertise on the board of members. We are convinced that the right way in which to achieve that is via the Secretary of State's responsibility for ensuring a fit between prospective board members' expertise and personal skills and those required by the CRC.
	Paragraph 3(3) of Schedule 2 on page 52 of the Bill and the code of practice laid down by the office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments already make provisions for that. Therefore, the Bill does not need to be more specific than that. While appreciating the motives behind the amendment, we maintain that it is unnecessary and invite the noble Baroness who spoke on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry, to withdraw the amendment for those reasons.

Lord Cameron of Dillington: My Lords, forgive me for returning at this stage to the issue of rural proofing but, as we have already seen tonight, it is a very important issue. I believe that the CRC is seriously weakened by not having these words in its primary purposes. I might add that the Countryside Agency attaches a great deal of importance to rural proofing and is sympathetic to what I am trying to achieve through these amendments. It, too, feels that it would be helpful to strengthen the role of the CRC in this respect.
	In terms of having the potential to raise the quality of life in the countryside, I believe that rural proofing is one of the best introductions to government by government, for a very long time. That is because it covers every aspect of 21st-century living and government's role therein. If carried out properly by the departments and the agencies, but enforced by the CRC, it can improve the delivery of health, law and order, educational services, transport, all the way through to advice on business, jobs, and so on. But it does need to be enforced, and it is vital that the CRC has the authority to do just that. It needs to be able to point the finger to name and shame, and it needs the authority of Parliament to do so.
	I have no doubt that the CRC already sees rural proofing as one of its major roles. Within the general purposes as currently spelt out in the Bill it would do its best to play a major role. But I want all departments and all government agencies to know that the powers of the CRC to demand—a key word—high standards of rural proofing come directly from Parliament. I want it to be able to say, "We, the CRC, have a statutory duty to demand rural proofing throughout your work. However awkward it might be for you, you cannot just tell us to go away and leave you in peace. We have a duty authorised by Parliament to be here".
	The Minister said in reply to me in Committee that he thought that the amendments were unnecessary as rural proofing was already at the heart of the CRC's role and work. I would hope that he would have no real concerns about spelling it out on the face of the Bill to strengthen the CRC's hand. As I say, there is broad support within the Countryside Agency for my amendment.
	With my limited knowledge of the inside dealings of these matters, I believe there was a thought at some early stage of the dismemberment of the Countryside Agency that overseeing rural proofing could be left to Defra and one of its Ministers. At any rate, there was a view that that option should be kept open possibly to allow it to happen in the future. I do not believe that view has much support any longer, but it may account for the reluctance, at least in the past, to permit these vital words to slip into the Bill. As I think I have previously explained, it would be entirely unsuitable for one department, Defra, to be looking into the affairs of another. It is important that the job of overseeing rural proofing is carried out by an independent agency, and preferably one which has the authority of Parliament, not just of Defra, to do so. It is of course equally important that someone keeps rural proofing within Defra up to the mark.
	I do not intend to highlight again the myriad examples of the need for rural proofing—we have heard a very good one tonight. We all know they exist, and will continue to exist, across all departments and government agencies. But I would like to repeat what I said last time about sharing some of the misgivings of other noble Lords—particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Miller—about the practical effectiveness of the CRC as a body which can research and report but which—I put it this way—will need a lot of political skill to make a difference on the ground. I think it is possible.
	However, effective rural proofing will make a difference on the ground to rural England and the people who live there, across every aspect of their lives. I, therefore, believe that it is important that the CRC is charged by Parliament to monitor rural proofing across government and I ask that your Lordships to support these amendments. I beg to move.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, after the fourth Committee sitting, we wrote to Peers who had spoken in Committee on 27 February with more explanation, among other transfer scheme matters, about how the Secretary of State might need to use the continuing power within Clause 27 to make a further scheme. I reassured noble Lords that the clause would not permit the general acquisition of property held by other public bodies, nor would such a scheme allow the Secretary of State to move assets other than those currently held by English Nature and the Countryside Agency between public bodies in pursuit of achieving government targets.
	In response to a question put by the noble Duke, let me make it plain that "Secretary of State" covers all government departments; it is a single post, occupied by any individual Minister. Clause 27 permits the Secretary of State to make transfer schemes to transfer property rights or liabilities of a Minister of the Crown to Natural England, the Commission for Rural Communities or a person acting on their behalf, or from the bodies in question to a Minister. Such transfers are intended to cater for the efficient management of property rights and liabilities, and will be related to the setting up of the new bodies. In particular, we envisage that we might need to make a further scheme when something was inadvertently missed in the original scheme on the dissolution of English Nature and the Countryside Agency.
	The ability to make the proposed transfer schemes is required to further the efficient management of property rights and liabilities. The schemes can relate to rights and liabilities affecting staff as well as property. It will be important that where the business need arises, the transfers can be made quickly. Making such subsequent transfer schemes subject to the statutory instrument procedure would add an excessive burden and delay to the process, the principle of which would already have been agreed by Parliament. I have been able to reassure the noble Baroness on some of the constraints on the Secretary of State in those circumstances.
	On Amendment No. 117, powers of direction such as those provided by Clause 38 are very much reserved powers that we hope never to have to use, but are also part and parcel of the safeguards that are normally built into the framework when setting up an NDPD.
	We oppose the amendment because it would allow Parliament to countermand instructions that the Secretary of State had issued. That cannot be right. It would leave the joint committee in the position of not knowing what it should do if a Motion was tabled to annul the statutory instrument.
	A further and arguably more practical consideration is that a delay might result. If a direction is to have value, the joint committee must be able to issue it as soon as the Secretary of State has decided to make it. Given JNCC's status as a cross-border body, any statutory instrument would need to be considered also by the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly. That would again involve further delay in issuing the direction.
	I hope that I have reassured noble Lords that the scope of the movement between the bodies concerned is limited. I invite the noble Duke to withdraw his amendment.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I have put my name to this amendment. I believe that some local authorities are excellent in practice but, as the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, rightly says, the comprehensive performance assessment at the moment gives no recognition of that important work, so even those authorities that are excellent do not receive the recognition that they should. The environmental part of the assessment was fairly hard-won, because when the CPA started it did not have an environmental area at all. Now it covers areas such as litter collection, and so on—so I think that biodiversity does need to be in there.
	These Benches very often say that they do not believe in duties being imposed on local authorities, particularly when resources do not follow. But I believe that the noble Lord's amendment, in this case, only asks that they further the interests of biodiversity in so far as is consistent with their functions. I really cannot add anything further to what I said in Committee—that I believe that it is about a state of mind and a way of working. I believe that the noble Lord's amendment would help that. I do not myself believe that it would be so hard to put it in the Bill.

Earl Peel: moved Amendment No. *119:
	Page 14, line 9, after "Wales" insert "or Natural England"

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, in Committee I proposed a blanket ban on the import of wild birds, which the Minister explained was not possible to implement for a number of reasons. So I have change my proposal from a blanket ban to a ban that sets out a number of criteria. An effective ban still remains my ultimate aim. In looking at the practicalities of achieving an effective ban I should mention a couple of points.
	Trade rules allow measures of protection that are proportionate to the problem that they are trying to solve. In this case, the problems caused by the trade are threefold—the risk to the sustainability of bird populations in the countries form which they come, the risks to human health posed by avian flu, and the risks to animal health and biodiversity.
	Regarding the information on whether the trade could be sustainable, the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, who has been involved in bird life for many years through the RSPB, stated in Committee, at col. 34 on 27 February, that over 15 years we pretty much failed to find any way of establishing a sustainable trade.
	At this time of night, I shall not rehearse all the health risks in relation to avian flu, but that still poses a threat. In Committee, the Minister told us that the European Commission was meeting this month to discuss the extension of the ban. He also said that the Commission was arranging a meeting with stakeholders to discuss the possibility of either extending or making permanent that temporary ban. Can the Minister update me on any developments on those fronts and what the timescale is for the consultations, if they have not taken place?
	Finally, I return to the issue of trade law and whether a ban can be supported, because Article 30 of the European treaty allows national governments to adopt proportionate measures to protect animal health—so there could be a permanent ban on that basis. There have been a couple of cases in the European Court of Justice, where such disputes end up—one of which, no doubt, the noble Earl, Lord Peel, will be interested in, because it concerned grouse. The second case concerned Danish bees, when it was held that the protection of domestic bees was a valid reason for an import ban, due to the threat from an invasive species. That threat might be in health terms or due to escapees, such as the well publicised case of the parakeet in the Richmond area, because such birds occupy an ecological niche that might otherwise be taken by other birds.
	So there are many reasons that the Government could choose to support a permanent ban. That is not impractical and I hope that the Minister will have a reply that will enable me not to press the amendment. I beg to move.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I will begin by speaking to Amendment No. 124. We accept that the sustainability of the current trade in wild birds is a matter of considerable public concern. It is very difficult for the UK to take action addressing these issues in isolation from the rest of the EU. There are provisions that enable the UK to introduce stricter domestic measures on wildlife trade, but they raise complex legal issues that require careful consideration.
	At best, this measure would be difficult to enforce, given the free circulation of goods within the EU. At worst, the measure could result in infraction proceedings by the European Commission on the grounds that it is contrary to the provisions of the treaty or that it contravenes WTO rules. As the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, said, the European Commission is already looking at these issues in the light of the threat from avian influenza, and the import of all wild birds into the EU has been suspended until 31 May as a precaution.
	The Commission has also been asked to consider whether there are grounds for extending the ban on a more permanent basis. For that reason, we feel that it would be premature for the UK to introduce any stricter measures with respect to the importation of wild birds, pending the development of a wider EU position on this matter.
	The UK is of course very concerned about the levels of mortality among some imported wild birds and we have already asked the Commission to look into this. Officials have already met the three relevant directorates general to discuss these issues and have hosted a round-table discussion with key stakeholders to examine the impact of trade bans on illegal trade and livelihoods.
	In the meantime, I should point out that CITES, which is implemented within the EU by means of European Council Regulation 338/97, already provides a robust mechanism for protecting some 1,700 bird species considered to be at risk from unsustainable trade. Action has been taken in the past to suspend trade or impose quotas with countries that fail to implement CITES properly, and we will continue to support such action in the future.
	The European Commission also has powers under Article 4.6 of Council Regulation 338/97 to make regulations to prohibit the import of other species for which trade is considered unsustainable or where there is a threat to native biodiversity. These powers have already been used to prohibit the import of the ruddy duck and the American bullfrog into the EU, and we are currently considering using existing powers in the regulation further to prohibit the keeping of these animals within the UK.
	We also have domestic legislation in place to deal with threats to native biodiversity. Section 14 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 makes it an offence to release or allow to escape into the wild any animal, including birds, that is not ordinarily resident in, or a regular visitor to, Britain. Supplementary to these existing provisions, Clause 49 of this Bill also includes provisions to regulate the sale of non-native invasive species.
	The timetable for consultation on the bird ban in the EU is in the hands of the Commission. It is awaiting an opinion from the European Food Standards Agency on the impact of bird trade on animal health and welfare and it is expecting a report in October.
	We believe that it would be premature to adopt an additional tier of regulation on top of the existing controls on the trade in exotic birds. Such overlapping legislation is likely to be confusing to traders and enforcers alike. We believe that we should have consultation before such a measure is taken and we want to await the outcome of the current deliberations within the EU.
	Nothing that I have said on Amendment No. 124 should be taken as minimising the strength of feeling of which we are aware not only in the House but among the British public.
	I shall seek to respond to the amendments spoken to in this group by the noble Baroness.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I assumed that we had an ad hoc grouping and was quite happy about it. The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, need not apologise.
	Clause 50 provides a power for the Secretary of State to issue codes of practice relating to non-native species, or to approve such codes issued by others. The purpose of the codes is to inform and educate people so that they do not cause problems for our native biodiversity by inadvertently allowing non-native species to establish themselves in the wild. They provide guidance on how to avoid committing an offence, of releasing or allowing the escape of non-native animals, or planting or causing non-native plants to grow in the wild.
	Amendment No. 125 would set the clause's commencement as a baseline date so that codes may be issued or approved by the Secretary of State for any animals that were not ordinarily resident or regular visitors to GB at that date. That would mean that such codes could be issued in relation to any animal which became established in the wild after that date, and which was not listed in Schedule 9 to the 1981 Act. An example would be chipmunks. I admit that my grandchildren are trying to find out where the chipmunks are in the wild because of their Chip & Dale, but they have not found them.
	Under the terms of Clause 50 a code could be issued on how such animals should be kept in captivity. There has recently been a number of sightings of chipmunks in the wild. In time, they could become self-sustaining, and as a result would be considered to be ordinarily resident. That would mean that the Secretary of State could not issue a code for the keeping of chipmunks under Clause 50. Unless and until the species was listed on Schedule 9, the amendment would allow her to do so without such a listing.
	At first sight it looks attractive, but we consider the appropriate mechanism for dealing with non-native species, which become established in the wild, is to list them on Schedule 9, which will ensure that further releases remain illegal. That would also bring them back within the scope of Clause 50(1)(b), and additions to the schedule can be made by the Secretary of State at any time.
	Amendment No. 126 is similar to one tabled in Committee, and seeks to add an alternative category for which such codes may be issued. The new category for which the Secretary of State may issue or approve a code of practice is for the marketing, sale and introduction of wild species, hybrids and cultivars derived from hybrids, including those considered indigenous or naturalised to Great Britain, as well as those considered not ordinarily resident. Any plant, including hybrids, can be added to Schedule 9. A consultation on additions to Schedule 9 will be published before the summer.
	Amendment No. 126 would widen the scope of animal and plants to which codes may relate, and specifically includes wild species—an uncertain term that is open to wide interpretation—hybrids and cultivars of hybrids. Following our debates in Committee, I am assuming that that is to ensure that cultivated species of hybrid plants are covered, and from what the noble Baroness said, I think that that assumption is right.
	We consider that hybrid animal and plant species are already covered by Sections 14(1) and (2) of the 1981 Act, and therefore also by Clause 50. Most animal hybrid species are not ordinarily resident in the UK, and so will be caught by Section 14(1)(a) and subsection (a) of the list in proposed new Section 14ZB(1). Hybrid animals that are ordinarily resident can be listed in Schedule 9, as sika deer hybrids have been, and so would be covered by Section 14(1)(b) and subsection (b) in new Section 14ZB accordingly.
	In relation to plants, there is nothing to prevent hybrid plant species being listed in Schedule 9 so that they are covered by Section 14(2) and subsection (b). Finally, you will note that new Section 14ZB(c) permits the issuing of codes in relation to descriptions of animals and plants included in subsections (a) and (b). We believe that this could include hybrids and cultivars of those species. We think that this is the appropriate and simplest course to take.
	I understand that the noble Baroness's intention is to prevent the inadvertent introduction of hybrids of native plants, such as Spanish bluebells, which are hybridising with our native bluebells and transforming our native woodland. There is currently no prohibition under Section 14 of the 1981 Act on planting hybrid bluebells in the wild or from causing them to grow there.
	We believe, however, that our current legislation is adequate, because, as explained above, any plant, including hybrids, can be listed in Schedule 9 and, therefore, fall subject to Section 14. A review of Schedule 9 is currently being undertaken and a consultation on proposed additions and deletions is likely to be published in the next few months.
	The amendment also widens the scope of Clause 50 to include those species that are considered indigenous or naturalised. Presumably these are included so that codes may be issued in relation to species which are considered to have become ordinarily resident but are not listed on Schedule 9, for example, rabbits.
	I have tried to cover this as rapidly as I can. There is much more that I could add. I would like to take the opportunity to write to noble Lords who have shown an interest.
	In practice, codes of practice issued by the Secretary of State will be targeted at vectors of introduction rather than specific species—for example, the code published last year was targeted at the horticultural sector; this year's code will be targeted at the exotic pet trade, and a future code will be aimed at transportation routes.
	I turn to Amendment No. 127, which has not yet been spoken to.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	House adjourned at one minute to eleven o'clock.
	Wednesday, 15 March 2006.